How exactly do you figure that "they didn't have a problem reporting the request from the white house" contradicts the statement that "the agency had been directed not to alert the voting machine company if it uncovered flaws, contrary to its standard practices."?

Seriously, read those two sentences a few times over and then explain wtf you're talking about

lol, and your comment is agenda-free, isn't that right comrade?

Like, no shit? Is it really a big shock to people that Microsoft -- or any megacorp -- isn't doing more than the law requires?

That's one hell of a dumbfuck definition of "better" if your idea for a better law is one in which the people creating said law can't figure out how the fuck it would even be feasible for a business to operate under it, so leaves it up to them to figure out or face criminal prosecution.

.
A better law would actually be:

1) "the internet gets to be private and anonymous by default
2) "Deal with it."

oof, you really think you wrote quite the zinger there, eh?

You just explained how they were able to eliminate 3 positions, i.e., they eliminated the cost of 3 salaries + benefits, but your awesome understanding of math deduced that they saved nothing? wtf is wrong with you

Imagine a world where you 1) didn't have to suss out (and fail) what a post is about because the editor did their job, and 2) didn't find it SO controversial that someone suggested that the post could've used like two extra sentences of explanation

Why are you under the impression that the story is that the yandex search engine was down completely?

I bet you consider yourself a really deep thinker

Ah yes, if there's one thing Mark and Meta/facebook are known for, it's "doing things right" -- they're TOTALLY not known for massive privacy and data security failures.

Truly, wtf are you talking about and why are you subjecting the rest of us to it?

Thanks for sharing that you don't understand what an editor's job is, or what the purpose of an article summary is.

"Oh look, a submission about Firefox supporting JPEG-XL. Before I post it, should I, /.'s top editor, edit the summary and explain wtf JPEG-XL is along with why anyone should give a shit about it? Nah."

-- BeauHD, Editor-in-Queef

that's cool, but wtf does that have to do with this post? did you just read the word "AI" and jump to the comments to share your deep wisdom?

At present, no. I've done a number of experiments with LLMs' capabilities with generating fiction, and while they are impressive for a beginner writer -- because fo the lack of spelling and grammar mistakes, they are nowhere near being able to write competent fiction.

This is because they don't model reader or character minds, they're based on word probabilities, like a predictive text keyboard. The engineers can compensate for for this to a surprising degree by feeding it data to recognize specific situations (e.g. the car wash is 100 feet from my driveway; should I drive or walk?). But this is turd-polishing.

AI technology practice isn't foundational. Critical thinking is. The closer AIs come to being able to do something that looks like them doing our thinking for us, the more capable we have to be at thinking without them. A human who can't outthink an AI adds nothing to an AI-human partnership.

This proposed school is a typical scheme by people who think because they have been educated, they understand how the education works. This is like thinking because you eat, you know how to cook. Project work in education is nothing new; it goes back well over a century. And in real life, you may get a STEM degree, but your real education in engineering comes from real life work. But that doesn't mean classes in calculus and physics don't do anything for you.

Or English classes, for that matter. Nobody doubts the value of project work in education, particularly *androgogy* -- the education of adults. But for *pedagogy* you have to establish foundational skills as the student matures intellectually and socially. Entering the high school years, a typical student has had *no* training in critical thinking skills. To develop critical thinking skills in an area, you need both general skills (epistemologicla literacy: research, location of orignial sources, dealing with conflicting evidence) and domain specific training in that area. In other words, *liberal arts* training is foundational in an AI-saturated world. "Liberal Arts" -- from *artes liberales*: literally the skills necessary to be a free person.

But I think these people have at least got the problem right: as AI drives the cost of elaborate projects down, we all have more projects in our future. Big, elaborate, faultlessly plausible-looking projects which may or may not have actual value.

Where they are completely wrong is the solution, which is to organize education around practicing using AI to make impressive projects. In a word of AI-enamored dunces this will put you at the head of a very sorry class of ignoramuses. The answer is to build fundamental cognitive and intellectual skils at every stage of a student's development. Project work is surely part of that, but it's just a technique, not a solution.

In a nutshell, the academy is training students to be the next step down the evolutionary scale from code monkeys. More like the pigeons B.F. Skinner trained in WW2 to peck at a screen, in an attempt to create a primitive guided missile without computers. They want to create "main characters"; and they'll probably create a few. There are always a few natural autodidacts in any moderately large group. But what they are set up is to produce a bunch of fragile, economically privileged narcissists trained to cover their lack of education with impressive-looking AI slop.